👀 家人們,每天看行情、刷大佬觀點,卻從來不開口說兩句?你的觀點可能比你想的更有價值!
廣場新人 & 回歸福利正式上線!不管你是第一次發帖還是久違回歸,我們都直接送你獎勵!🎁
每月 $20,000 獎金等你來領!
📅 活動時間: 長期有效(月底結算)
💎 參與方式:
用戶需爲首次發帖的新用戶或一個月未發帖的回歸用戶。
發帖時必須帶上話題標籤: #我在广场发首帖 。
內容不限:幣圈新聞、行情分析、曬單吐槽、幣種推薦皆可。
💰 獎勵機制:
必得獎:發帖體驗券
每位有效發帖用戶都可獲得 $50 倉位體驗券。(注:每月獎池上限 $20,000,先到先得!如果大家太熱情,我們會繼續加碼!)
進階獎:發帖雙王爭霸
月度發帖王: 當月發帖數量最多的用戶,額外獎勵 50U。
月度互動王: 當月帖子互動量(點讚+評論+轉發+分享)最高的用戶,額外獎勵 50U。
📝 發帖要求:
帖子字數需 大於30字,拒絕純表情或無意義字符。
內容需積極健康,符合社區規範,嚴禁廣告引流及違規內容。
💡 你的觀點可能會啓發無數人,你的第一次分享也許就是成爲“廣場大V”的起點,現在就開始廣場創作之旅吧!
Gemini Files Request to Dismiss SEC Lawsuit
Gemini filed a brief addressed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) late last Friday.
It contained a request from Gemini’s legal team for the dismissal of the court case filed against it by the SEC, citing unclear accusations.
Whereas Binance, Coinbase, and Bittrex – the last of which has since settled outside of court – filed their requests citing improper jurisdiction, overreach, and so on, Gemini claimed it was not even clear what the charges are.
Security Filing Requirements Allegedly Not Met
According to the court document, Gemini argues that in order for a complaint pertaining to the unregistered sale of securities, the SEC would have to identify the security in question and ascertain that a sale had taken place.
However, Gemini’s lawyers claimed that these two conditions have not been met, thus invalidating the complaint.
The agency has not met that burden, and its opposition avoids the question before the court. Oddly, the SEC’s opposition asserts that it has alleged that there are two different securities: the Master Digital Asset Loan Agreement (“MDALA”) and the Gemini Earn program itself.
This is not what the Complaint actually alleges, and the fact that the SEC cannot decide what is the security at issue only underscores the weakness of its position. It also violates fundamental fairness and the requirement of fair notice.
Furthermore, as far as the Gemini Earn program is concerned, Gemini’s lawyers posit that no sale of a security ever took place. Instead, the only transactions to take place in the program are loans and the return of said loans.
Although a case cited by the SEC (Chris-Craft Indus. v. Bangor Punta Corp.) hints that securities could be sold in the future, Gemini argues that this is irrelevant since the mentioned clause is a mere hypothetical.
The Sale of Securities Remains Unconfirmed
The document also claims that even if the court rules that both alleged offerings are indeed securities, the SEC has failed to “plausibly allege” that a sale occurred in the first place.
As a result, Gemini’s lawyers request that the court decide for themselves if the SEC’s complaint(s) match the criteria for a valid lawsuit. Assuming the court arrives at the same conclusion as Gemini, the crypto platform requests that the case be dismissed.
The request will be revised by the SDNY and commented on at a later date.